- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100334 OF 2023 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI IRFAN S/O. DAVALSAB BIJAPUR, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. CENTERING MESTRI, R/O. MANTUR ROAD, HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 24.07.2023 PASSED IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67/2020 BY THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 17.02.2020 PASSED IN C.C. NO.3996/2017 PASSED BY THE I JMFC, HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 380 OF IPC, 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.04.24 14:35:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in C.C. No.3996/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced as under: “Acting under section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under section-380 of I.P.C. Accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two year and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount the accused is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Acting under section-357(1) of Cr.P.C it is further ordered that after deposit of the fine amount by the accused the same is ordered to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 be paid to the complainant Vibha as compensation.” 3. Validity of the conviction and sentence was confirmed in Crl.A.No.67/2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged on 25.10.2017 with Ashok Nagar Police Station by Smt. Vibha Prabhu alleging the commission of the offence of theft in her dwelling house on 07.06.2017. 4.1 Police after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused under Section 380 of IPC. After due trial, accused was convicted and sentenced as referred to supra. 4.2 During the course of investigation, golden finger rings belonging to the complainant were seized and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 handed over to the custody of the same to the complainant who had identified the stole golden rings. 4.3 After the conviction order came to be passed, accused filed an appeal before the District Court in Crl.A.No.67/2020 challenging validity of order of conviction and sentence. 5. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the material on record, by a considered judgment dated 24.07.2023, dismissed the appeal. 6. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this revision petition. 7. Sri Roshan Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel for revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that both the Courts have not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC and sought for allowing the revision petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 8. Alternatively, Sri Chabbi would contend that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, taking note of the fact that in other cases, the accused has been acquitted and State has not challenged the order of acquittal, this Court may enhance the fine amount reasonably and set aside the remaining part of imprisonment by considering the custody period already undergone by him as period of imprisonment. 9. Per contra, Sri Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent supports the impugned judgments. 10. He would further contend that recovery of golden finger rings completes the offence in the absence of any proper explanation offered by the accused and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 11. Sri Praveena would also contend that the accused is also having criminal antecedents and mere acquittal in the other criminal cases would not ipso facto make out a case to seek for setting aside the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 imprisonment and sought for dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 12. Having heard the arguments of both the sides in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 13. On such perusal of the material on record, learned Trial Judge has taken into consideration that accused has committed theft in dwelling house and spot mahazar, recovery of the golden finger rings is established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record. 14. The Trial Judge has also taken into consideration the evidence placed on record in the form of spot and recovery panchanama and also the auto rickshaw which has been used in the incident, has recorded an order of conviction. 15. Contents of Exs.P-7 and P-9 are worth noticing in this regard wherein stolen golden finger rings and auto rickshaw have been seized. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 16. No doubt, the owner of the auto rickshaw has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. But merely on that ground that the seizer of auto rickshaw and interim release thereof cannot be doubted. 17. The oral testimony of PW-3 and PW-9 gets corroborated by recovery of golden finger rings for which the accused failed to offer any explanation nor established the ownership thereof. Complainant has identified the golden finger rings which are stolen from her house. 18. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, the recording of order of conviction by the Trial Magistrate needs no interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. 19. Having held that conviction order needs no interference, it is now the task of this Court to find out whether the sentence ordered by the Trial Judge confirmed by the First Appellate Court needs modification. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 20. Taking note of the fact that another criminal case is pending, the Trial Judge did not grant probation. 21. Sri Chabbi has placed on record with a memo the photocopy of the order, obtained from the online, passed in another criminal case wherein accused has been acquitted and State has not challenged the same in any appeal. 22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- payable by the accused, if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside by treating the period already undergone as the period of imprisonment, ends of justice would be met. 23. Accordingly, the following order is passed. ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6474 CRL.RP No. 100334 of 2023 Section 380 of IPC, the custody period already undergone by the accused is treated as period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable by the accused on or before 15.05.2025. (iii) Failure to pay the enhanced fine amount would automatically result in restoration of the order of imprisonment ordered by the Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iv) Out of the fine amount received, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is ordered to be paid as compensation to complainant. Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with a copy of this order forthwith for issuing the modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NAA CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 19